In the early usability tests we ran for the discovery system we implemented earlier in the year one of the aspects we looked at were the search facets. Included amongst the facets is a feature to let users limit their search by a date range. So that sounds reasonably straight-forward, filter your results by the publication date of the resource, narrowing your results down by putting in a range of dates. But one thing that emerged during the testing is that there’s a big assumption underlying this concept. During the testing a user tried to use the date range to restrict results to journals for the current year and was a little baffled why the search system didn’t work as they expected. Their expectation was that by putting in 2015 it would show them journals in that subject where we had issues for the current year. But the system didn’t know that issues that were continuing and therefore had a date range that was open-ended were available for 2015 as the metadata didn’t include the current year, just a start date for the subscription period. So consequently the system didn’t ‘know’ that the journal was available for the current year. And that exposed for me the gulf that exists between user and library understanding and how our metadata and systems don’t seem to match user expectations. So that usability testing session came to mind when reading the following blog post about linked data.
I would really like my software to tell the user if we have this specific article in a bound print volume of the Journal of Doing Things, exactly which of our location(s) that bound volume is located at, and if it’s currently checked out (from the limited collections, such as off-site storage, we allow bound journal checkout).
My software can’t answer this question, because our records are insufficient. Why? Not all of our bound volumes are recorded at all, because when we transitioned to a new ILS over a decade ago, bound volume item records somehow didn’t make it. Even for bound volumes we have — or for summary of holdings information on bib/copy records — the holdings information (what volumes/issues are contained) are entered in one big string by human catalogers. This results in output that is understandable to a human reading it (at least one who can figure out what “v.251(1984:Jan./June)-v.255:no.8(1986)” means). But while the information is theoretically input according to cataloging standards — changes in practice over the years, varying practice between libraries, human variation and error, lack of validation from the ILS to enforce the standards, and lack of clear guidance from standards in some areas, mean that the information is not recorded in a way that software can clearly and unambiguously understand it. From https://bibwild.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/linked-data-caution/ the Bibliographic Wilderness blog
Processes that worked for library catalogues or librarians i.e. in this case the description v.251(1984:Jan./June)-v.255:no.8(1986) need translating for a non-librarian or a computer to understand what they mean.
It’s a good and interesting blog post and raises some important questions about why, despite the seemingly large number of identifiers in use in the library world (or maybe because) it is so difficult to pull together metadata and descriptions of material to consolidate versions together. It’s an issue that causes issues across a range of work we try to do, from discovery systems, where we end up trying to normalise data from different systems to reduce the number of what seem to users to be duplicate entries to work around usage data, where trying to consolidate usage data of a particular article or journal becomes impossible where versions of that article are available from different providers, or from institutional repositories or from different URLs.